How do we enact co-innovation with stakeholders in agricultural research projects? Managing the complex interplay between contextual and facilitation processes

Ingram, Julie; Gaskell, Peter; Mills, Jane; Dwyer, Janet C

doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.003

Cited by 63 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 78 publications

(115 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Literature shows that important for co-creation processes are also the characteristics of the stakeholders involved and the quality of their relationship [7,20,26]. This is consistent with Catmull [50] (p. 74) who notes that "getting the right team is the necessary precursor to getting the right ideas [ .…”

Section: Condition Type Of Condition Referencementioning

confidence: 53%

“…Contextual conditions Crisis situation and a sense of urgency Enabling [7,20,[22][23][24][25] Imbalance of power, authority, and resources Hindering [9,22,24,[26][27][28][29][30][31] History of relations (level of initial trust)…”

Section: Condition Type Of Condition Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…• No antecedents or antecedents of hostile relations • Antecedents of positive relations Hindering Enabling [22][23][24][32][33][34] Characteristics of stakeholders and quality of their relationship Diversity of stakeholders Enabling/hindering [3,[35][36][37][38][39] Attitude of stakeholders Enabling/hindering [7,40,41] Leadership Enabling [20,22,27,36,[42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] The contextual conditions refer to the set of specific or unique circumstances or factors that may influence the inception and trajectory of a co-creation process, thus becoming either resources or liabilities during collaboration [7,22,26]. Regarding this, literature [23][24][25] suggests that a crisis situation, triggered by turbulent environments and events, or by the failure of an actor or sector to solve a problem independently, leads to a shared sense of urgency that stimulates those affected to work together for finding a solution.…”

Section: Condition Type Of Condition Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conditions for Co-Creation in Infrastructure Projects: Experiences from the Overdiepse Polder Project (The Netherlands)

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent decades, stakeholder engagement had been gaining momentum in planning practice. More recently, at the heart of the discussions about collaborative endeavours stands the concept of co-creation, an umbrella term for multiple forms of collaboration between stakeholders, which is seen as an approach for fostering new and innovative solutions for highly complex challenges. Despite this idyllic representation, co-creation does not always lead to positive outcomes. One reason is that co-creation poses major operationalization challenges, which make it a significant subject for research. In this article, we explore the conditions that allow co-creation practices aimed at fostering innovation and creativity in infrastructure projects to take place and flourish. Based on the review of literature on co-creation, on the analysis of project-related documents, and on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with the stakeholders, this article follows the co-creation process of the Overdiepse polder project, part of the innovative Dutch water management programme ‘Room for the River’. The results show that co-creation is an iterative process that depends on conditions related to the context, the characteristics of the stakeholders and their relationships, but also on the design and dynamics of the process. The results of this study can be of help to researchers, academics, and professionals interested in studying or applying co-creative approaches.

show abstract

Section: Condition Type Of Condition Referencementioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Condition Type Of Condition Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Condition Type Of Condition Referencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conditions for Co-Creation in Infrastructure Projects: Experiences from the Overdiepse Polder Project (The Netherlands)

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the typology of CoPs they produced includes distinctions based on the connectedness with external actors [12]. Given that the ability of multi-actor co-innovation partnerships to function is mediated by social performance, an analytical framework must consider the embeddedness in the external environment, its relation to other relevant actors outside the partnership, and its potential long-term effect [7,14].…”

Section: Bringing Structure To the Complexity Of Multi-actor Partnerships: Developing An Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this contribution, we focus on those collaborations that are multi-disciplinary and intersectoral; multi-actor co-innovation partnerships can be conceptualised as a social learning system where interactions take place in which members develop a shared practice over time via a shared repertoire of communal resources. Furthermore, the understanding of co-innovation, in line with [13] and [14] as a process in which multiple partners manage mutual knowledge flows across their organisational boundaries through joint activities while engaging actors in iterative learning processes, is congruent with activities performed by CoPs, as described by, for example, [12]. However, as CoPs are mostly defined as actors with similar characteristics (e.g., farmers), multi-actor co-innovation partnerships appear to fall in a conceptually fuzzy area between a CoP and an innovation network, which is more often understood as multi-disciplinary and intersectoral cooperation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analytical Framework to Study Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector

Cronin¹,

Fosselle²,

Rogge³

et al. 2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communities of practice (CoPs) interact with a range of external stakeholders who collectively influence the direction of the community and the achievement of its goals. In the case of multi-actor co-innovation partnerships, which are perceived as a type of combination between a community of practice and innovation network in this paper, internal and external interactions consequently influence the ability of these partnerships to co-innovate. The aim of this contribution is to develop an analytical framework to understand the factors and processes that enable or hinder interactions, both within and external to multi-actor co-innovation partnerships. The analytical framework was built around interactions with funding mechanisms, external stakeholders, the context/environment, and societal challenges, along with interactions within the partnership. Each of these five interactions is influenced by structures and capacity, along with how these combine to overcome the challenges faced by the partnership. For this study, 30 case study multi-actor co-innovation partnerships from across Europe were selected and analysed according to the framework. The results show that interactions with funding bodies can lead to partnerships adapting to what they perceive to be the goals of the funding body, and sometimes to the overpromising of expected outputs in an effort to win scarce funding. The reflection of societal needs in the goals of funding bodies could thereby capitalize on the motivations and aspirations of partnerships to combine socio-economic and environmental benefits at both individual and societal levels. Factors that enable partnerships to achieve their own goals are commonly based around the inclusion or recruitment of experienced partners with existing networks, in which the partnership may be embedded, that can facilitate internal collaboration and navigate the external environments, such as political structures and market conditions.

show abstract

System lacks systems thinking: Top‐down organization and actor agency in China's agricultural extension system

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extension of agricultural technology is important for farmers to improve their practices. However, criticisms are made of top‐down extension systems, which fail to meet smallholder farmers' needs due to reliance on a linear, one‐way transfer approach. Meanwhile, the role of farmers' knowledge is gaining attention in the academic literature on agricultural extension, but yet overlooked in the applied Chinese context. These issues require a holistic analysis, towards, which systems principles can provide insights. We present a case study of the interaction between the national extension system and smallholder farmers in Guangxi, China. We found that the system constrains the autonomy and capacity of extension officers in implementing activities. Also, farmers actively exercise agency in identifying and responding to farming issues. We argue that the system should build the adaptive capacity of officers and farmers by fostering systems thinking to enable smallholder farmers to tackle farming complexity in a changing world.

show abstract

How do we enact co-innovation with stakeholders in agricultural research projects? Managing the complex interplay between contextual and facilitation processes

Cited by 63 publications

References 78 publications

Conditions for Co-Creation in Infrastructure Projects: Experiences from the Overdiepse Polder Project (The Netherlands)

Conditions for Co-Creation in Infrastructure Projects: Experiences from the Overdiepse Polder Project (The Netherlands)

An Analytical Framework to Study Multi-Actor Partnerships Engaged in Interactive Innovation Processes in the Agriculture, Forestry, and Rural Development Sector

System lacks systems thinking: Top‐down organization and actor agency in China's agricultural extension system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About